You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Dear forum members,
Eupedia moved to a new server last week. If the forum tells you that the page has unsafe scripts, or if anything doesn't work properly on the forum, just clear your browser cache and cookies and everything should go back to normal.

What do Europeans think of Napoleon nowadays ?

Having a debate in my History class on Napolean I and his relation to the French Revolution. I am on the pro-Napoleon side, which I think he did good for France. I just want to see how the true Europeans would rate him. Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

Napoleon was a clever opportunist. He saw the power vacuum in post-revolutionary France and filled it efficiently and ruthlessly. He was in the same mould as Louis XIV, an autocratic, imperialist despot. He was quite successful militarily for a very short period of time but left a legacy that took the French nation a century-and-a-half to recover from.

I agree with those who say he was a better friend to the US than to Europe. I'd also add that he was a great friend to Britain as his ultimate military failure left them free to dominate the 19th century as the almost undisputed world superpower.

I agree with those who say he was a better friend to the US than to Europe. I'd also add that he was a great friend to Britain as his ultimate military failure left them free to dominate the 19th century as the almost undisputed world superpower.

That's true. Many people forget that it's because Napoleon annexed the Netherlands that Dutch colonies were taken over by Britain. Without Napoleon's intervention South Africa, Sri Lanka and Malaysia would have remained Dutch, and Singapore wouldn't exist. Singaporeans indirectly owe their city/country's existence to Napoleon's ambitions.

Similarly, the Spanish colonies in the Americas were able to become independent because Spain was conquered by Napoleon. In the absence of an independent Spanish government and military the colonies were free to break off (starting from 1810). Spain was too weakened after French rule to recover its colonies and was forced to recognise their independence (most of them around 1820).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

Nobody has mentioned yet that Napoléon started Imperialism in Europe. Before him there was only one European emperor, the Holy Roman Emperor. After everything country tried to become an empire : Britain, Austro-Hungary, Germany...

Napoleon wanted to unite all of Europe. If he had won, united Europe would have been 200 years old. Unfortunately not everyone then understood and even now understands his good intentions. Right hand traffic is his only legacy. And not even in the UK.

Right hand traffic is his only legacy. Right. Anyways, I wondered this myself, if he had won, would he have been considered to be the founding father of modern Europe? But with his Napoleonic Code and its effects on France and Europe, the argument could still be made, though I am not sure it is as strong as would be the former, had it been realized.

Anyways, curiosities about Napoleon are what led me to this forum. In fact, during my recent stay in Versailles, what impressed or fascinating me the most was the imagery of Napoleon that I saw presented in the statues and paintings of Napoleon from his own era. I try to post a picture, but it will not let me link to it as I do not have enough contributions to this forum, but a Google Image search of Imperial Napoleon will lead to to images of the Emperor with Robe, Laurel Crown and Staff. Rather impressive looking by any standards.
I had no idea this kind of imagery existed of Napoleon, it completely rocked all of my assumptions about who he was and what he did.

Being an American with very little knowledge about the Napoleon beyond his role in the Louisiana Purchase and his efforts at "domination over Europe", I am, of course, very curious about his story now, and wonder if anyone could recommend to me a good book or two that present an objective synthesis, or at the very least provide multiple viewpoints on this great figure in relatively modern history.